PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 23, 2025Clinical Oral Implants Research3 citationsOpen Access

Cross‐Linked Volume‐Stable Collagen Matrix Versus Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation at Implant Site. A Non‐Inferiority, Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

View Full Paper
FCFrancesco CairoCRCosimo RupeRCRaffaele Cavalcanti

Key Points

  • Connective tissue graft resulted in better peri-implant mucosal thickness compared to collagen matrix.
  • The mucosal thickness increase was 1.0 mm in the CTG group versus 0.66 mm in the VCMX group.
  • Patients reported shorter chair time with collagen matrix and less postoperative discomfort.
  • Both techniques led to high patient satisfaction, though CTG had superior results for thickness gain.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aims To compare the efficacy of cross‐linked volume‐stable collagen matrix (VCMX) versus connective tissue graft (CTG) to increase buccal peri‐implant mucosal thickness (MT) around dental implants. Methods The present is a parallel, randomized multi‐center clinical trial, according to the CONSORT statement. Clinical centers were four Italian periodontal settings. All patients received a soft tissue augmentation procedure, by means of CTG or VCMX. The primary outcome variable was peri‐implant mucosal thickness (MT) difference at 12 months follow‐up. The statistical unit was the patient. An analysis of covariance was performed for this outcome variable. Secondary outcomes were patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, variability among operators, and changes in keratinized mucosa width (KMW). Results A total of 98 patients completed the study, 49 in each group. MT increase was 1.0 ± 0.75 in the CTG group and 0.66 ± 0.58 mm in the VCMX group. CTG showed superior results to VCMX for MT gain (0.37 mm, 95% CI: 0.13–0.61, p = 0.002). In cases of Baseline MT ≥ 2 mm, CTG and VCMX yielded comparable results. VCMX was associated with shorter chair time (diff: 10.0 min; 95% CI: 5.02 to 14.98; p < 0.0001). Patients in the VCMX group experienced fewer days of discomfort (0.46 days, 95% CI: 0.06–0.99, p = 0.05), while no differences were found for final aesthetic and general satisfaction (CTG: 99.28 ± 2.28, VCMX: 98.48 ± 3.92, p = 0.22). Conclusions Both techniques improved MT, and CTG yielded better outcomes. VCMX was associated with shorter chair time and less postoperative discomfort, but both procedures achieved excellent final patient satisfaction.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cairo et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d473bb31b076d99fa6ca63https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70050
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper